Real estate is priced on the margin. So if 1% of the people don't come back, prices will probably fall more than that 1%.

If 10% of the people don't come back, then prices may fall 40%.

It's a tough game things like this happen. My feeling is that we haven't even begun to see the beginning of this.

And if prices in NYC fall 40% then there will be a stampede of people moving back pushing things back up until an equilibrium is reached.

Only if the wealthy tenants come back. The biggest driver of real estate prices in general has to be the top 5-10% of income

I live in NYC. The number one reason people I know leave is affordability vs the suburbs or next tier cities. I know a handful of people who aren't/weren't cut out for life in the Big Apple. The vast majority would stay if they thought they could. If you think we are in a world of permanent pandemic then yeah things could really change. If you think 12 months out things mainly normalize then lower prices will definitely draw people back in and re-establish equilibrium.

When you live in a city, there’s an unspoken agreement between you and the city that you’re paying for access to amenities and services that would be hard to get in the suburbs. It’s an unspoken agreement since “the city” isn’t actually a party that you can negotiate with.

During the pandemic, this agreement has been broken, which has created a feeling of being cheated out of an agreement (despite the caveats above). It’ll be interesting to see if people will be excited to return to normal once this is over, or if people will re-evaluate whether they’re getting a good deal.

Were people really living in the city for the recreation? I always thought most people either lived in the urban core for work, or because they're from the urban core and used to it.

But then again, I suppose I'm biased by living in Boston, which... kinda hates fun and wants to make sure you go home early.

All my evidence is anecdotal of course, but in 20+ years of working in the Bay Area, I've asked maybe 30-40 people who live in SF and commute, why the do so. Most of them were young single people (or young couples) and enjoyed the cultural aspects. They were happy to endure long commutes (often on company shuttles) just so they could enjoy those things on nights and weekends.

When I worked in SF, one left the city when they had kids, and one bought a house, but they just enjoyed urban living, being able to walk places, have lots of services nearby, etc.

A few were part of a family where their kids were born there and were in school there, or the grandparents were nearby.

San Francisco has the lowest percentage of kids of any major U.S. city. 13% under 18 vs 21% in NY and 23% in Chicago.

This was particularly eye opening: “For every 100 apartments in the city sold at market rates, the San Francisco school district expects to enroll only one additional student, the report said.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children...

I have lived here for 10+ years, rarely see kids play out. Every other city I have lived, it's common to see a bunch a kids and teenagers.

All of these trends are temporary. Once the current residents die, either new singles move in, or maybe families if the city makes policy choices that are friendly.

The most important reason that I've heard of is that SF won't let you choose a school close to your neighborhood, so you can end up with kids in multiple schools across town, or in schools you don't like.

personally I live in SF and commute because when I'm at home I want to be able to get around on foot and transit. also I like the feeling of living in a reasonably dense area.

I moved to a medium-sized city primarily because I prefer being in a medium/large city. I've always worked remotely, so I could have stayed in my small town with a very cheap cost-of-living.

Reasons I moved:

  - restaurants
  - bars
  - concerts
  - larger dating pool
  - greater LGBTQ acceptance
  - close proximity to international airport
  - can walk almost everywhere
  - I find most american suburbs to be depressing

So, the virus has wiped most of those amenities out. Living in the city is a lot less fun now.

Ok, so what I'm getting from the extended responses to this thread is that I need to get the hell out of Boston, because I've just been doing it wrong for all of my late 20s and into my 30s.

If you don't feel you're getting those things in Boston, I would consider it. I'm in Denver, which is somewhat similar to Boston in size, and Denver definitely is not a 24/7 city like NYC. But I'm OK with that. I grew up on the east coast and I do prefer the culture of the western states more.

I am in my mid 30's and moved here about five years ago and I wish I had done it in my 20s. I hope you find a place you can enjoy!

San Francisco has great restaurants and food, and I'd argue that "from the urban core and used to it" basically just means "I enjoy having these amenities like nice restaurants to go to".

Lots of reports on the food getting much worse over the last decade. Turns out cooks cant afford to live there, so you have to start scraping the bottom or hiring people with no training to just make salads.

Yes, we had such nice restaurants in Brooklyn when I was a kid. They served syringes and cheap pizza.

I still love living in the city. Wouldn't move to the burbs if you paid me.

Syringes?

Yes, needles. There were needles in the parks and on the sidewalks in Brooklyn back in the early '90s when I was a little child.

The remark was ironical.

All of my young, single, and educated friends who previously lived in low cost of living areas (eg more rural areas or smaller cities) have moved to major cities within the last few years. All of them cited lack of things to do, highly suboptimal dating environments, and / or lack of pre-existing friends nearby as prime motivations for their moves.

Yep. I moved from my rural hometown to a small city after college (still work in my hometown, which is nice as I've got friends there and can stay at my parents any time I need to), but I'm already wanting to move again to somewhere bigger where there's just more to do.

They cited suboptimal dating environments so moved to The Valley. What?

major cities, not California

Are you assuming they’re all heterosexual men?

A lot of tech workers endure long commutes to other parts of the Bay Area from SF because they wanted to live in SF so badly. I'm sure it's a lot less attractive now because everything is locked down.

Definitely! I moved to Chicago specifically to work remotely and enjoy the restaurants, art, parks, etc. It may be a generational difference but many of my peers have done the same.

Yes, work, network, recreation and to get laid. Then you move to the burbs so your kids can have a yard.

You move to the burbs because it's cheaper and kids are expensive.

Lot of young people like to live in cities like SF and NYC especially for a vibrant social/recreational life. SF also attracts outdoorsy people because of its access to nature like beaches, hiking spots and so on.

If you really care about the outdoorsy stuff you're better off in Marin or the south end of the bay.

Sure, but none of them give you the best of both worlds which is SF's selling point. Personally, I'm not the city type which is why I don't live in SF. But I know quite a few who like the social + outdoors life the city offers.

It has been said that San Francisco is a retirement community for twenty-somethings. Without Zeitgeist and Boogaloos, what's the point really?

"College for adults" captures the feel a bit better imo. (Wife's phrase.)

As a 100% remote employee living in the NYC FiDi (and now not planning on renewing my lease), I'm there most definitely for the recreation

Why live in FiDi if you're here for recreation though? It seems like a pretty dead area outside of office hours? Thought I admit I haven't spent much time there.

New building with a view, pool, rooftop, gym etc. Only comparable buildings are on 42nd st (which is another distinct area that I’m not a fan of). Personally I like the energy, lots of good restaurants, close to trains. You can get to Brooklyn in 15 minutes!

Of course they do.

I once met someone who was a lawyer who lived in Manhattan and worked in Princeton, NJ so his daily commute was Subway to Grand Central, Train out to NJ, bus to his work.

And look at all the people who live in SF and commute out to the South Bay for work.

Personally I'd never suffer that kind of commute and I live in Manhattan precisely to get my commute to walking distance but to each their own.

NYC is open 24 hours a day.

Miami closes at around 2AM (generally).

It's night and day.

NYC is open 24/7 on paper. In reality, I was surprised to find the nightlife at night very poor. Except few bars/restaurants and McDonald's, there are few people. But maybe I was spoiled from Bangkok, Tokyo and the other Asian cities who are hardcore at staying late.

Tokyo stays up late because of their train schedule. The last trains are mostly around 1AM which is too early for a night out, so most people just end up extending their night outs to 5AM first train back home. Taxis are too expensive.

Yeah, Boston wants you to be going home at 12AM, when the last trains are leaving their stations, and they force bars/clubs/restaurants/etc to be closed by 2AM, period.

It makes me miss the random industrial city in another country I lived in for my MSc. Admittedly, that's one of my favorite cities period, but it had night-owl bus lines, including BRT. You could go out at 20:30, stay out until 04:30, and get home at 5:45.

Preach. Boston is damn near overly hostile towards young people. They hyper regulate all activities and services that young people want to participate in or use as you point out, do nothing to reign in housing prices, and then are shocked when they have a hard time retaining talented people after they get their degrees. It's absurd.

>and then are shocked when they have a hard time retaining talented people after they get their degrees.

I mean, come on. Are they shocked? Or is this how the townies want it? My impression is that quite a lot of the "natives" who think of themselves as "True Bostonians(TM)" (ie: not just those of us who've lived here for years, married someone raised here, and own property here) want this place to be the world's most populous (but rather restrictive) college town.

Why would they want more people around to ruin their city by walking around doing things? Come, spend your money like a tourist, fuel their businesses, get your degree if you're one of those workaholic nerds, and get the fuck back out. You can come back eventually if you manage to make the tenure track!

>Boston is damn near overly hostile towards young people.

Massachusetts is overtly hostile to anyone who does not step in line the way a good well behaved cog in the machine should. Making it hard for people to stay out late and get drunk is just a specific instance of that.

When you picture the state as being run by a committee of stodgy puritanical authoritarians who live in Lincoln and Lexington it all makes sense.

> It makes me miss the random industrial city in another country I lived in for my MSc.

Why not just say Haifa?

Because most people don't know where that is, and aren't stalking my LinkedIn to see where I got the MSc.

Hard to call that "stalking" when you made it so blatantly out there for people to visit.

This is a tech-industry news site. Half of the people here are on real names and/or provide links for networking. Yeah, I make my professional self "out there" for people to get in touch with on here.

It is the use of the derogatory term “stalking” towards a person who’ve visited the links you put there yourself that I find peculiar, rather than the links.

Ah, I think that might just be an age or social-clique thing. At least among my friends, we've generalized "stalking" to just generally include seeking out someone's real-life identity via their online breadcrumbs, even when the "breadcrumbs" are signposts put down on purpose.

> NYC is open 24 hours a day.

The Vegas strip is open 24h. NYC isn't.

Vegas is a con. Went there and probably will never return.

Smoking, gambling and open liquor is about the extent of Vegas. It gets boring after a weekend there. Obviously if someone is dependent on any of the three it is the best place ever.

If you're like me who doesn't smoke, hate the smell, gambling is just $100 for entertainment value and drink beer while eating dinner it isn't the place to be at. This is generally what I hear fellow millennials once they visit.

I've spent a lot of time in Vegas and while it does get old it takes a lot longer than a weekend.

There's clubbing, lots of high end dining, shows galore, Red Rocks for hiking and climbing, each casino on the strip is a spectacle, old Vegas, shooting ranges, etc. Most of those things costs a fair bit of money but are well worth doing.

I don't disagree but that isn't what was being discussed.

Miami (FL) doesn't close. When I lived there not long ago, there was a period where I was between jobs where I came home after sunrise every day of the week. If you're trying to stay out past 2am in Miami and not able to, you're not trying... at all. Bars/clubs usually close at 5am, but I believe are only required to close for 1 hour a day, so there are afterhours spots.

Source: Native Miamian.

DC used to close at 6 pm. It was amazing.

There are also people who lived in suburbs or small towns and hated every minute of it. I personally know quite a few like that.

I live in SF and before covid used to commute outside the city. Maybe I'm an outlier (or just in my late 30's...) but the reasons I live in SF are actually better with the lockdown: I love walking and biking the neighborhoods, I love Ocean Beach, Glen Canyon, and Fort Funston, Crissy Fields and the Embarcadero, the Presidio, biking across the bridge. This city has so much to love that has zero to do with bars or restaurants, and after 10 years living here, frankly I'm tired of paying the premiums all those activities entail.

A few single people I work with in the Bay Area moved back in with their parents and terminated or did not renew their lease, some even left the US temporarily to return when things are back to normal.

Another factor to consider is that many people move to a big city for work and higher earnings.

There will probably be some shift back, but I think after all this remote work will be a more permanent option for a lot of roles.

If you're able to get the same higher salary, but remotely somewhere with a more affordable cost of living, and aren't in that area specifically for in-person amenities, why wouldn't you?

My point is that most of the people that live in the city do it for the amenities. The people who are in it for the higher salaries tend to commute from cheaper places nearby.